FOIA is a recognised shorthand for Freedom of Information Act. Legislation by this name has existed in the USA since 1966, Australia since 1982 and the UK legislation was introduced in 2000. It was climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, conspiring to evade the UK FOIA that probably inspired Climategate, with Mr FOIA, as the “hacker” calls himself, releasing over 220,000 documents and emails beginning in November 2009. In a recent email he explained: “The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.”

By providing public access to emails and documents from leading climate scientists, Mr FOIA exposed how tricks, adjustments, and corrections, were routinely applied to climate data to support the propaganda of the largely government-funded global warming industry.

I recently scrutinized documents from a successful FOI request by John Abbot to the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, DCCEE. As far as I can make out from the documents the entire Australian Climate Change Science Program can be likened to what Mr FOIA describes as “a massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor” for which the climate scientists are generously remunerated by the Australian taxpayer. Let me explain in more detail:

Alan Jones is Australia's most popular talk back presenter. Alan Jones is a phenomenon. He is described by many as Australia's greatest orator and motivational speaker. Alan has the mind and capacity to make complex issues understandable to the largest Breakfast audience in Australia.

Click source for MUST LISTEN interview between Alan Jones and biologist Jennifer Marohasy about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin

Also see below for another Alan Jones Interview: The Australian's Paul Kelly talks about the Greens, post-Bob Brown.

If you apply proper scientific method to the data relating to anthropogenic global warming, the myths that have been created are clearly exposed for what they are...

"There has never in human history been a greater disconnect between the basic science and what is going on at the moment... ...it is absolutely astonishing the disjunct between the politics and the socio-economics of the "green agenda".... Climate has always changed, it always will, there is nothing unusual about present day rates of change.

Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, nor is it the primary forcing cause of climate change. Attempting to stop climate change is an expensive act of utter futility you are literally trying to stop the clouds crossing the sky " (Paraphrased)

Professor Bob Carter's presentation is an easy to understand explanation of this important issue

Gregory (of Scotland Yard): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

And so an outraged commentator at Steven Goddard’s blog asks why we can’t observe the effects of increasing infra-red radiation…

“WHAT you have is a bunch of people claiming ever more heat in the atmosphere in form of infra-red, but the infra-red telescopy field says not one word for multiple score of years about ‘rising infra-red destroying our viewing and here’s the analysis over time’

You hear NOT ONE WORD from optical telescopy – the field that helped Einstein cement relativity’s place in history by measuring the bending of a beam of starlight by galactic gravitational bodies – not ONE WORD from the optical telescopy field which effectively holds up a microscope to the atmosphere’s heat distortion – remember the DEFINITION of HEAT on GAS is – what kids? it’s M.O.T.I.O.N.

There is an important point that was missed in your article about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Applying the argument to the “greenhouse gas” theory is quite simple: there can be no “back radiation” from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth’s surface. It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it applies to radiative transfer…’

More following from Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a coauthor of “Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”…

‘Consider two flat, parallel surfaces each with unit emissivity facing each other. One surface is maintained at a higher temperature, Th while the other surface is maintained at a lower temperature Tc . If the hotter surface were facing a complete void or surroundings at 0 K, the flux of radiant energy that it would emit and that the void would receive is sTh4.

ACCORDING to the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, a scientific theory, for example, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is likely to be based on a particular set of experimental and theoretical techniques for matching it with what is observed in the physical world.

The hard core of AGW theory is embodied in the law and mathematical expression described by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius over one hundred years ago. In its original form, Arrhenius’ law states that if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. Dr Arrhenius calculated values for the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric carbon dioxide and speculate that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause a global temperature rise of 5 – 6 °C.

It wasn’t until 1988 that AGW captured significant political attention. That was when climatologist James Hansen, in his testimony to US congressional committees, claimed a 4.2°C global temperature increase would result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

FYI, Please find attached a paper, I co-authored, that was recently published in the British Journal ‘Environmental Law & Management’ on FOI, AGW and the IPCC.

We are obviously very grateful to David Holland for supplying the ‘raw material’ for this assessment.

Cheers, Jennifer

CLICK to download New Peer-Reviewed Paper by John Abbot & Jennifer Marohasy

Abstract

The UK Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) are intended to provide a mechanism whereby information held by public authorities can be accessed by the public. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recently considered the disclosure of information from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and concluded that e-mails revealed scientists encouraged colleagues to resist disclosure and delete e-mails, apparently to prevent disclosure through FoI requests. The case study presented here focuses on requests under FoI legislation to obtain climate information from the Met Office, particularly relating to assessments of global warming and causal relationships with greenhouse gas emissions. Evidence suggests both the CRU and the Met Office are part of a culture where institutional climate scientists are antagonistic towards disclosure of information. This has serious implications for both the effective operation of FoI legislation and the openness and transparency of climate change assessments.

Published in Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pgs 3-12

MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.

Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data - which he had been asking for since 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. (Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009)

Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.

If these guys can do it so can we....join the FaceBook group Fire James Hansen and network with people who may be able to protest in your area against Al Gore and James Hansen.....

ANYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil. Remember that is what the big man, Al Gore, said in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. But like so much that Mr Gore says, it just isn’t true.

We have received a few emails concerning our comments on Bloggers Tackle Global Warming Questions, we said at the time...Many people say to us how can the experts have it so wrong about CO2 and a warmer world, the answer to that is, the science of climate change did not exist at the time of the first analysis and was improvised with data that supports the "effect" of change" and NOT the "cause" of change. It is a classic case of a misdiagnosis of "cause and effect" with the "effect" being labeled the "cause".....This issue has appeared again recently from the JenniferMarohasy.Com site.

CENTRAL to discussion of climate change models is the concept of “forcing” and “feedback”. So, reference is made to global warming from radiative “forcing” from elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide in the troposphere and then “positive feedback from water vapour”, adding to global warming.

Everyone talks in these terms, and it is politically correct to do so. But there are two problems.